Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 7 of 94 (444368)
12-29-2007 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-26-2007 12:23 PM


Re: basic assumptions needed
This all sounds rather like the Specimen ridge example in Yellowstone national park. The classic interpretation of the eroded hillside exposing layers of petrified trees was that the layers of trees represented 32 subsequent forests and 100 000 years of earth history. This 'interpretation' was presented as fact in geology textbooks. Young earth Christians had no better explanation for many years.
In 1980, Mt St Helens erupted knocking down thousands of acres of trees. Over 1 million of these trees ended up floating on Spirit Lake. They became waterlogged and many sank in an upright position to the bottom of the lake.
If the trees were buried in a subsequent volcanic event, the area would have the appearance of many forests which had grown on top of each other over thousands of years. Yet this sedimentay deposit was formed rapidly by a single flood-like event.
Returning to Specimen Ridge,it is interesting to note that the buried trees do not have the extensive roots that would be expected from trees which had grown in place. Instead they have abruptly ending root bundles indicating uprooting from somewhere else.
So here we have an example of historical interpretation being incorrect but no suitable answer for creationists for many years.
Anything from the past has to be interpreted as it only exists in the present -you can't smell or taste or see age in rocks and historical formations - you have to interpret. Creationists may have a bias in interpretation but so do evolutionists who are quick to grab onto the interpretation that suits the rest of their big picture.
I read an article recently about how mudstone was believed to be formed slowly in still waters but how studies are showing that this is not correct. If that belief is behind all mudstone formation interpretations, lots of slow accumulation interpretations must now change.
How about 1st and 2nd stage supernova remnants. Based on historical observations over the last 2000 years, millions of supernovas should have occurred. Since only around 200 second stage remnants have been found, this would indicate that our universe is far younger than the age required for evolution to have occurred. So lets face it, that won't suit evolutionists even though it should be evidence falsifying the concept of extreme age of the universe.
When these things happen, we of the creationist persuasion expect to find an enormous story conjured up to explain away the obvious implications of the evidence since we know that evolutionary presuppositions will dominate interpretation and the simplest solution will be unacceptable.
if the evidence shows that the earth is young that there would be no contradictory evidence showing anything being older than the real age of the earth.
Or visa versa but don't count on it making a difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 12:23 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2007 7:07 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 38 of 94 (445411)
01-02-2008 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-01-2008 5:06 PM


Beginning presuppostions
Creation starting point:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...All things came into being through him and without Him not one thing came into being." (John 1)
Evolution starting point:
"In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.
And the particles somehow became living stuff;
And the stuff imagined God;
But then discovered evolution."
You can't prove there is no God, we can't prove that God exists.
You know God had nothing to do with it, we know that God has everything to do with it.
Everything depends on which starting point is true.
Natural selection causes variability in living things but cannot explain where the complex genetic code came from in the first place.
Information has to come from somewhere.
Either the genetic code was made by God or, against the known laws of physics and chemistry, the genetic code arranged itself by chance.
One is true, the other is false.
"The discovery of evolution finally made possible the death of God, with Charles Darwin supplying the indispensible murder weapon.This was the theory of natural selection which made God unnecessary as creator of the living world." (Phillip E Johnson -The Right Questions)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 5:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2008 1:49 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 5:57 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 39 of 94 (445413)
01-02-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
12-31-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
I look at the evidence and find that as a Christian I can see, understand and accept both God and the fact of Evolution. In addition I find that over 11,000 US Christian Clergy also accept God, the Bible, Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for what is seen.
If evolution did the creating, what part did God play?
If evolution did the creating then the Bible is false from the beginning so how do you decide which parts to believe and what to discard?
In the beginning was the Word or in the beginning were the particles -there's a big difference.Naturalistic philosophy leaves no room for God.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 11:30 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 49 of 94 (445601)
01-03-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Could I suggest once again that you READ A FRICKIN' BIOLOGY TEXBOOK.
Perhaps it is because I read them that I find these conclusions valid. Why are you getting so upset? Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from? Do you think it just arranged itself randomly or is it an information code impressed on matter but not a property of the matter?
Naturalistic philosophy is the starting point for evolution.You have to believe that nothing but impartial laws could have caused us and everything else on this planet to have formed through chance and natural laws -it doesn't make sense but that is the starting point or presupposition on which evolution is built.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2008 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2008 2:18 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 2:21 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 51 of 94 (445607)
01-03-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
01-02-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
tesla writes:
then evolution in no way proves God is not.
No it starts with the basic premise that God is not and draws faulty conclusions based on that original faulty premise.
And those that tell you otherwise are lying.
And those that tell you otherwise are not dogmatically attached to those evolutionary presuppositions (the evolution religion). They are not 'lying' at all (that oh so common refrain in this forum)-they are trying to bring some balance and open-mindedness to the issues of this debate -they are trying to separate fact from dogma and lay it all out for everyone to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 53 of 94 (445620)
01-03-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
01-02-2008 6:40 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Tesla writes:
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
It doesn't. Evolution starts with life existing - particularly starting with the life we know today and working backwards.
Actually evolution proposes that purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves which is quite an amazing thing considering what is known today about the extreme organization that is required even for the simplest cell.The proposition was acceptable in the days when a cell was assumed to be little more than a blob.
The proposition is no longer an acceptable one considering what we now know about the complexity of the simplest forms of life -hence the intelligent design hypothesis which better explains such an unbelievable occurrence.We've come a long way since Darwin's day and the matter needs to be rethought.
earliest life known is a cyanobacteria 3.8 billion years old, and it is a prokaryote with cell wall enclosing DNA etc
Kind of a complicated arrangement to have arranged itself by random natural processes.DNA and cell membrane - a lot of information.And then it had to reproduce itself as well...
Even today with all we know about what goes on inside a cell, we cannot make one and we cannot even think of how we are going to get itself to reproduce -pretty miraculous and requiring far more faith than the proposal that life may have come from pre-existing intelligence.Even if we could find a way to make life in a laboratory we would then have to admit that to make life requires intelligence and organization.
Eukaryotes with nucleus and mitochondria evolved roughly 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago.
And then in a relative flash came all the major body plans or phyla in the cambrian explosion defying slow gradual incremental evolutionary development. Quite strange I would think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 7:40 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 54 of 94 (445625)
01-03-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by sidelined
01-03-2008 2:18 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
sidelined writes:
Beretta writes:
Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from?
Through the physics of the electromagnetic force and only different from the rusting of iron or the freezing of water in complexity of interaction between the atomic bonds of the elements present and the order of their interaction.
Well you know the 'scientific' confidence that this is so, is based not on experimental results but on philosophy. Scientists BELIEVE that chance and law had to do the whole job because they BELIEVE nothing else was available.Genetic info is the 'software' of the organism. The 4-letter chemical alphabet of the DNA is translated into the 20 letter alphabet of the proteins. But the DNA chemical letters, like the arrangement of the letters on this message is not determined by either chance or the laws of chemistry. Chance produces only random disorder and chemical laws produce the same thing over and over again.If the chemistry of DNA controlled the order of the letters there would be no message, or at least no message with any information content higher than the simple order that is present in the chemical laws.There would be no protein synthesis , and no life processes.
The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software.Where did it come from is the question???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2008 2:18 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2008 8:07 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 57 of 94 (445630)
01-03-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 7:49 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Isn’t this cyanobacteria blue-green algae, the same blue-green algae we see today in our rivers and lakes. Shouldn’t it have evolved after 3 800 000 000 years or does it need longer?
Well yes, other things including us humans were pretty quick in comparison -they must just be happy and content in their little eco niche and felt no need to progress further. It's all about evolution explains everything -absolutely everything and there is no need to look further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 58 of 94 (445634)
01-03-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
01-03-2008 7:40 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
RAZD writes:
Beretta writes:
Actually evolution proposes that purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves which is quite an amazing thing considering what is known today about the extreme organization that is required even for the simplest cell.The proposition was acceptable in the days when a cell was assumed to be little more than a blob.
Actually not.
Actually not what? What's your story?
Argument from incredulity on top of nonsense
What!? It is incredible that you can believe it requires no further explanation than the age old 'evolution did it'.
RAZD writes:
Kind of a complicated arrangement to have arranged itself by random natural processes.DNA and cell membrane - a lot of information.And then it had to reproduce itself as well...
So? The fact remains that this is what the evidence shows, and beyond that we don't know.
It exists so evolution must have done it -beyond that we have no idea how, just the faith that it is the answer to every question -no further proposals required.Put the word 'gribbleflix' in for 'evolution' and gribbleflix did everything -no questions please.
Which just shows that your understanding of "relative flash" and "slow gradual incremental evolutionary development" could be wrong eh?
Of course, that would be my lack of understanding or perhaps an outright creationist lie but let us not admit that there is anything wrong with the evolution philosophy.
It doesn't matter what you think Beretta, the universe is totally unimpressed, and things will continue to progress regardless of your opinion or conclusions of what is or is not impossible.
Well it is certainly not my opinion alone, I have loads of company and things will actually continue to run down not progress regardless of your opinions or conclusions.
Once you see it for what it is, you will be venturing closer to the truth that you live in denial of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 7:40 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:42 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 75 of 94 (445841)
01-04-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin
01-03-2008 10:42 AM


Abiogenesis as part of evolution
Hello Rahvin
(Abiogenesis) - has literally nothing to do with Evolution.
Not according to science textbooks where the EVOLUTION section always includes a section on how life began (according to scientific naturalism beliefs)- the primordial soup, the Urey Miller experiement etc.
Evolution only speaks about the changes in life forms over time. it has nothing to do with how life formed in the first place.
No it defines itself as as change over time but slips in all those changes that are assumed but not proven. Of course any theory of life would be incomplete without a beginning. You can't propose common ancestry without a beginning -where did the first primitive organisms come from? That has to be part of what evolution entails.
So we have the scientific observable parts and the philosophical assumed parts and all are presented in bio textbooks as fact when in fact the real facts constitute only a portion of what is taught as fact.
Your incredulity doesn't make an argument false
Yes but your blind faith doesn't make it true either.
especially when you don't even comprehend what you're arguing against.
Sadly I do fully comprehend but you assume that I do not comprehend because I don't happen to believe it. That is a common accusation of evolutionists towards anyone who does not believe in evolution as presented by 'science' as fact. You can't possibly understand it if you do not believe it.
"God did it" is the explanation that explains nothing, Baretta.
Unfortunately 'evolution did it' is not a good explanation either.
Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's a scientific Theory that accurately describes the observed changes in life forms over generations
Up to a point it is accurate until the imaginative part comes in -then it becomes naturalistic philosophy -no need for any intelligent help -time and chance are the magical ingredients working on nature -which is all there is.Nobody has a problem with the observable part, its the imaginative part that is in doubt.
The Theory of Evolution is more like giving the exact, step by step process that best fits how the car was fixed.
Unless it loses its way and starts to describe 'the best guess under the circumstances' as the fact of the matter.
the majority of human beings are woefully uneducated.
So whatever the majority believes is false because they are woefully uneducated? I'm not talking about the woefully uneducated. In any case anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution in its fullest sense would be woefully uneducated in your eyes.
Scientists who believe in the theory of evolution in its fullest sense and call it fact are woefully indoctrinated into a philosophical doctrine called naturalism.If the facts don't fit then make them fit by sommonsing up a new and interesting story on why the non-fitting facts actually do fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:42 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 76 of 94 (445842)
01-04-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
01-03-2008 10:49 AM


Re: Topic Folk Please.
"The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions?"
Well how about the uniformatarian principle being a presupposition leading to conclusions about the earth's age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 8:56 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 77 of 94 (445848)
01-04-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
01-03-2008 11:23 AM


Uniformatarian Assumptions
what is seen is a period when all we see are the indications of very simple life forms
And we are presupposing time has to do with depth of find -uniformatarian assumption/presupposition.
indications do not show hard bodies or the complexity of later organisms.
That means later as in presupposing time has to do with depth again.Perhaps the hard bodied types lived at a different level or their body type predisposed them to being buried higher or they tried to get away and failed a little later than the ones that were maybe already under the sand or the ground? What if the time presupposition has nothing to do with it but uniformatarian principles are being assumed to be fact.
higher up we find layers where similar critters are mixed in with hard bodied critters.
Assuming time again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 11:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2008 5:07 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 87 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:00 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 79 of 94 (445850)
01-04-2008 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
01-03-2008 10:34 AM


Time Assumptions
Well the conclusion (note: not a presupposition) is that there was a time when there was no life on earth and that since then life has evolved.
Based on the assumption of uniformatarianism and thus burial depth indicating time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:01 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 80 of 94 (445851)
01-04-2008 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rahvin
01-03-2008 11:29 AM


Simple Organisms
we can actually see and understand examples of simple forms of life (simple in this context meaning "simpler than multicellular life")...that's a pretty reasonable conclusion.
But we know know that even 'simple' unicellular organisms are hugely complex so how did life start if none of it was ever simple. We suppose simple came together on its own and became more complex.
Presupposition.
Right now we have bacteria, viruses and us and we all exist on the same planet at the same time so why do we assume simple preceded complex? Why must time have anything to do with it?
Evolutionary Answer: because there is no higher intelligence to create life so simple must have occurred by natural processes and complex derived from that.
Presupposition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 11:29 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 82 of 94 (445857)
01-04-2008 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
01-03-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
Dating is a matter of conclusions based on available information. There is no presupposition there.
Look at the theory behind radioactive decay -loads of assumptions -one being that decay proceeds at a constant rate and always have.
suits the picture of evolution since it gives big dates BUT is it true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 12:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tusko, posted 01-04-2008 7:24 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:10 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024